Comments (18)

Displaying 1 - 18 of 18

Rubin @ 6/23/2011 11:08 AM

The officer is CLEARLY out of bounds. As an officer with over 20 years in law enforcement, there was clearly no danger to the officers (I counted 3), and given Ms.Good was on her property, the officers should be at the least reprimanded, apologize, retrained, and charges dropped...ant at mist terminated and tried for civil rights violations.

Jeff @ 6/23/2011 8:37 PM

Wow Ruban...why not lynch the officers to and hang then?!? Why the hate? If they made an error then deal with it but your really quick to throw the book at them with brute force!

critter852 @ 6/23/2011 8:43 PM

Rubin,

ARE YOU SERIOUS????? Where in the hell did you do your 20 plus years in law enforcement? In the parks or in the sticks? You clearly have NEVER worked in the inner city, and have probably never laid eyes on a drug dealer or gang member! This officer was CLEARLY within his rights to ask her to return to the house for both her own safety and for the safety of himself and the other officers present. Her refusal to comply with a polite request turned into her refusal to obey a direct order. This caused the officer to be forced to take his attention away from the original reason for his presence there in order to deal with her. Her refusal also drew a crowd of onlookers (as you clearly saw at the end of the video). That, at the very least is obstruction/interference with police, and for those states that don't have it on the books anymore (like TN), it is disorderly conduct. I can't believe that another police officer would have a negative response to Officer Masic's handling of this incident. I think he was extremely professional and did what needed to be done. It's sad that people like Ms. Good are apparently now making their way into law enforcement as was evident by this ignorant comment.

Mike @ 6/23/2011 8:48 PM

Nice Job Ruben. Want to hang him now.

The background is the car stopped was occupied by several gang members, she approached the officers and told them she was friends with the occupants of the car. She then went behind the officers several times before behing arrested. They edited the first part of the tape. This is the same group (SDS) that has caused many problems from blocking a fire truck on it's way to a call, to blocking the road in rush hour for an illegal march to protest the war in Iraq.

Ruben, I hope you are not on any jury becuase it is apparent you dont need facts to use for your judgement. Or maybe you have never work in an urban environment where citizens are anti police.

Mike @ 6/23/2011 8:51 PM

By the way Ruben,this is the same group that posted the officers home address on You Tube. The same group that previously assaulted many officers.

Blaine @ 6/23/2011 9:01 PM

It looks to me like some Rochester cops (like far too many cops across the nation) need some remedial training in the Constitution they have sworn to defend, at least a couple of weeks off without pay, and a sincere apology and flowers to their victim. Cops must not get away with bullying law-abiding citizens simply for refusing to obey arbitrary power-trip police orders.

critter852 @ 6/23/2011 9:58 PM

Hmmmm... I suspect that we are not among friends here... I would not be surprised to learn that neither Rubin nor Blaine have ever donned a uniform and badge and placed his ass on the line for anyone. The Supreme Court (whose sole job it is to interpret the Constitution) routinely supports officer safety in most circumstances. This officer articulated the reasons for his concern, and a reasonable officer in the same situation (the standard), would feel the same. Thank God Rubin and Blaine aren't backing me up... hell, I doubt that if they are cops they back ANYONE up. Friggin idiots! And I wonder why law enforcement is in the state of affairs it's in these days... you don't have to look far to see why judging from comments from these "officers"

Deputy 67 @ 6/24/2011 5:25 AM

Ms. Good is known trouble maker and 'community activist'. Take it for what it's worth. She was given a lawful instruction by a LEO and failed to obay that instruction. She told them that she knew the individual involved in the traffic stop. Of course you don't hear this as she said it before she started filming. Now, how would you feel if there was someone who knew the individual and was standing behind you while you're as involved as these guys were?

Dan Holsinger @ 6/24/2011 9:39 AM

First Critter...I have over 35 years as a Police Officer...The last 15 as a Captain, both in the " Sticks " of West Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach. Just FYI....as you have never spent a day in the "Sticks" as a Law Enforcement Officer, you have absolutely no idea about the dangers of the "Sticks". That being said, I don't want anybody standing behind me while I am making an arrest...PERIOD. It's taught in the academies and any Police Officer worth his/her salt will remedy the situation as soon as possible. Where I have worked the majority of my career, if I am making an arrest on a country road and there is a house three hundred yards away, I keep my eyes toward that house. This is because we are all hunters in this state and someone could step out on their porch and take your head off with a high powered rifle. My point is, if someone that far away, has an anti-Police attitude, they can take your life so imagine what this clearly anti-Police person could do if she would have been armed and was so minded. The Officer was clearly within his right to do exactly what he did. Also, Rubin...as a Police Officer, that was enforcing the law before you were born...You must be one of the NEW Generation Police Officers that has no idea about the dangers of this particular situation. If this woman had been armed and was left a few feet away from this situation...and decided to defend the poor innocent brother being arrested, she would have easily killed at least 2 of the officers and maybe all three. Rubin...You may want to take your head out of your ass before somebody blows it off.

TL @ 6/24/2011 9:40 AM

RUBIN are you kidding me. when the video first starts up, she is to close. ordering to go back into the house is what he felt needed to be done for his and his fellow officers safety. I have had this before. On a traffic stop where a drunk home owner comes out and tries to explain the law to me. "MY YARD, I read on the internet".

Fact is she was told several times, he explained officer safety to her and all she wanted to do was argue. i hope the DA files.

A.T. @ 6/24/2011 2:31 PM

Guys, I agree that it was a safety call and I would have probably done the same thing if I felt threatened or distracted by someone with an some kind of device in the dark behind me or even in front of me.But it doesn't matter what we think of what we feel, we can close ranks all we want, and get all emotional about whether it was the right thing to do or not in our minds, the problem here is the public's perception of the event, based solely on this video. That's all we have.. ,And this perception is overwhelmingly in favor of the woman who was arrested, especially while the traffic violator was allowed to go free. Now it has become a legal matter, devoid of emotion. Being self-righteous and indignant will not matter one bit in the legal arena.

Remember whenever you are being videotaped you are now an ACTOR for the potential jury.In the public's perception the punishment (the arrest) didn't fit the crime (refusing the order to go inside her house when standing within the boundaries of her own property). Often what is a safe path may not be the legal path. So while this was a safety call on the part of the officer ( that is his defense) , it may have been an illegal call to make. A direct order, whether given politely or not, (that doesn't matter), may not be a legal order. And if it is an illegal order, she has no legal obligation to comply. ...(ran out of space. Continued on the next post....)

A.T. @ 6/24/2011 2:32 PM

(Continued from previous post....)I feel that this woman stands a very good chance of winning this case in court. The fact that later ii is discovered that she is a community activist or a troublemaker or a police hater and all that, is totally irrelevant and it would be inadmissible in court, if it ever gets that far (I doubt it, as I think RPD will settle). the main question in the courtroom would be whether she was within her legal rights to be standing where she was standing within the boundaries of her own property, videotaping or not. The fact that she was videotaping is also irrelevant, but her attorney will make that appear to be as the real reason for the arrest. And what do you think the jury will say, after all the other citizen videotaping going around in public all the time when police are doing police work?In the totality of these circumstances, I am afraid it will be difficult for the officer to convince the jury of his safety concerns in light of the non-threatening verbal responses of the woman who was videotaping. The Safety defense seldom works in passive Civil Disobedience cases. The safety issues he personally felt at the time will be contradicted by what's in the video in the minds of the jury. And that's the deciding factor when all is said and done.

Clearly this will be a can of worms for the Rochester PD.

Mike M. @ 6/24/2011 6:05 PM

Please allow me to comment as a "civilian." I have always been a strong advocate of law enforcement, but episodes like this are really shaking my support. I am 58 years old, spent a career as a public school teacher, now retired. I am not exaggerating when I say I fear police as much as criminals. I'm calling BS on the officer fearing for his safety. If he feared for his safety in this situation, he needs to look for a new line of work. I suspect the intentions of the lady taking the video were not completely honorable, but not criminal. Imagine the support that could have been gained by handling this situation properly. Yes, ask her to step back. When she complied, as she did, then get on with your business while being filmed. If your behavior is above reproach, you have nothing to fear. Gangs control inner cities. Repeat offenders continue to offend. Drugs continue to be a problem. Police are barely holding the line, yet this officer makes the "easy" arrest. I continue to support you and defend your actions, but I am tired of watching shows like Cops where police use excessive force to "take down" suspects who are trying to cooperate all the time saying "quit resisting" as if that justifies the rough handling of suspects. I know that's TV and may or may not be real, but I've personally heard police laughing and joking about taking folks down the hard way when it simply wasn't necessary. They just enjoyed it. Best wishes to all of you. Stay safe. Protect and serve as you are sworn to do. Many of us really want to support you, but it's not unconditional. Lots of good comments here...and lots of knee jerk responses by "LEO's."

metro @ 6/25/2011 4:36 AM

Heyyyy Ruuuube!!!!! 1st rule of the road: Officer Safety. 2nd rule of the road: Investigation. Interfere with either, go to jail. It doesn't matter what's on film or the locale. These are law enforcement fundamentals the world-over.

CK @ 6/26/2011 5:36 AM

Sounds like this was possibly an intentional setup. The woman should *not* have stood that close to the traffic stop, whether in her front yard or not. If shots were fired, and she was injured, she would have sued the police for failing to protect her. Several people joined the fracas, making a bad situation worse. The officer asked the woman to go inside more than once and she just argued instead. It may have gone better if he had simply explained that it was unsafe for her to hang out at traffic stops, in a calm, cool and quiet manner. Obviously the officer knew he was being taped, he should have put his emotions on hold and put his best professional foot forward, rather than giving the public fodder. In the end, it makes his Department look bad, whether he was right or wrong and that is exactly the kind of situation that an officer needs to guard against.

Mike M. @ 6/27/2011 1:47 PM

Again, as a civilian...it may have been a setup by Ms. Good. You're professionals. Deal with it. Of course the latest video circulating is of police using rulers to determine if cars in her neighborhood were more than 12" from the curb. Four police cars and officers dispatched for this duty. I will assume that all other crime in the city has been eradicated. This is why law abiding people like me are losing faith in law enforcement. I've heard the argument, "What if they weren't there?" Well, on this day they weren't "there." They were citing cars that were not creating any problem...and life went on. And if anyone tells me this was just a matter of police enforcing parking regulations, I'll call BS on that, too. This is a followup to my comment above.

brad @ 7/26/2012 11:27 AM

Dan you talk a good game but thats about it. Why do you only mention two police departments that you worked for when their has been at at least five others. You act like you know it all but if I heard right you couldnt make it through the WVSP Academy as a Cadet and Quit Then tried to get on the WVDNR and they wouldnt hire you either lol. Capt LOL of a two member Dept, you and the Chief LOL that must have been alot of responsibility. I understand that you manage to shut down that entire Police Department to the point that the city decided not to have a police dept. As I understand that dept was over a hundered years old and destroyed in a matter of a few years by you. I was reading where you sued the University Police Dept that was impressive . The only thing that you have ever been good at is destroying families. I am also under the understanding that when confronted one on one that you dont have alot to say. From all that I have heard and know about you I dont know how you can look yourself in the mirror and even feel like a man.

brad @ 8/23/2012 12:00 PM

Another lie from Dan what a SURPRISE. I did some checking with the city of Kingwood and you were not a Captain for fifteen years, not even close. Can you ever tell the truth.

Loading...

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Mayor Frank Jackson of Cleveland apologized for the language in the city's response to the...

Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!